My beliefs

[Pikachu_PM]

My word you're really starting to piss me off....

You keep taking one little item from an entire post and attack it...all the while ignoring the point of the post.

Did you not read my example? My whole point is that the bible was *compiled* by people after the works were written (you've admited as much yourself) Who were these people that that dedided which stories were to be left out and which were to be added? How do we know they didn't re-write stories, or add their own stories(and in fact there is evidence to suggest that is exactly what happend). How can a book be labeled divine when it was *compiled* by man (proven) even if it was written by divine inspiration from God (not proven)?

Perhaps the bible claims the earth to be 2500 years old..or 4000 years...I forget the exact figure and don't carry a bible whereever I go. The bible puts the age of the Earth in the thousands...science puts in in the Millions--if not billions--of years....and certainly hasn't proven it to be in the thousands (as you claimed).

Frankly, I think it would be best if you refrained from responding to my post as you seem entirely incapable of doing anything but trying to attack my opinions by pointing out minor errors. It would be like you writing out a well thought, mind provoking, essay and my answer being "yeah, but it's not your, it's you're...idiot" If you are going to respond to my post and want to point out errors--fine--but have the courtesy to respond to the WHOLE post.

What you have essentially proven to me is that you read only what you want to read, and when you have no good answer to an argument you find some minor detail within the argument to attack in and attempt to discredit the entire conclusion. I don't build straw men arguments...and you don't destroy a house by knocking out a few bricks.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: Did you not read my example? My whole point is that the bible was *compiled* by people after the works were written (you've admited as much yourself) Who were these people that that dedided which stories were to be left out and which were to be added? How do we know they didn't re-write stories, or add their own stories(and in fact there is evidence to suggest that is exactly what happend). How can a book be labeled divine when it was *compiled* by man (proven) even if it was written by divine inspiration from God (not proven)?

I don't think you're understanding what a "completed work" is or the nature of the bible being a collection of completed works.

Comparing it to a compendium of Shakespeares plays is a good comparison. Does the compiler add in scenes? Add characters? Change an ending? No, they take full plays, completed Sonnets and compile them into one edition.

Pauls letter to the Romans is a complete letter. A work. The compiler simply grabs that, decides it should go in the bible, and decides it should go after the Book of Acts, and before Pauls letters to the Church in Corinth.

Similarly, they may take the fully completed book of Jeremiah, and decide where that will go. They don't add words, phrases, chapters or paragraphs. If they come across manuscripts that have an additional chapter, it quite clearly will say "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have verses 24 - 38" (for example) and then include that also. Honest accurate compilation.

So please. Understand that just because it is between two covers, the bible is not one book. It is a collection of books that were assembled into one volume. Another such compilation is the Torah. As I have said repeatedly, the Torah, is a collection of the first five books in the bible.

How do we know they didn't rewrite stories? Because we still have ancient manuscripts. As I said already, the ancient dead sea scrolls were recently found and supported the existing translations.

We don't follow a book of fairy tales of dubious substance. The bible contains the most substanciated, backed up, historically accurate, archealogically supported work of their times.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: Perhaps the bible claims the earth to be 2500 years old..or 4000 years...I forget the exact figure and don't carry a bible whereever I go. The bible puts the age of the Earth in the thousands...science puts in in the Millions--if not billions--of years....and certainly hasn't proven it to be in the thousands (as you claimed).

Science has theories about the origins and age of the universe, not proof. For all you know existence plopped into being two seconds ago, complete with implanted memories. All that is real is "now" all else is memory. Five minutes? Five years? What is the difference?

Scientists gather evidence and make conclusions. Yet other scientists believe the "old earth" theory to be flawed. The amount of space dust that annually falls left of the windless moon for example.

Certainly there is no proof either way.

However, the bible does provide a list. A geaneological list from Adam to Jesus. Father to son, to father to son. I see no reason why I shouldn't believe that information - constent as it has been for thousands of years - instead of hypothesis that are continually changing and in internal disagreement. Is the universes expansion speeding up or slowing down? Science can't agree. You need faith either way.

Frankly, I think it would be best if you refrained from responding to my post as you seem entirely incapable of doing anything but trying to attack my opinions by pointing out minor errors. It would be like you writing out a well thought, mind provoking, essay and my answer being "yeah, but it's not your, it's you're...idiot" If you are going to respond to my post and want to point out errors--fine--but have the courtesy to respond to the WHOLE post. What you have essentially proven to me is that you read only what you want to read, and when you have no good answer to an argument you find some minor detail within the argument to attack in and attempt to discredit the entire conclusion. I don't build straw men arguments...and you don't destroy a house by knocking out a few bricks.

If you can't get little details correct what hope the big ones? You may not care about little details but I do. You have no credibility if you have no attention to detail.

Interestingly, the bible has incredible dedication to the little details. Which in turn leads to a greater trust in it's larger declarations.

If you can't get the little details right, it's pointless arguing with you. The list of rules from the old testament is a prime example. You've completely ignored Grace, the concepts of being removed from the law of Moses, for the reason for or nature of the covenant between God and Israel.

I repeat, the advice of the bible has been flawless in my life. My life also goes awry when I ignore it's advice. Recommendations for justice to the ancient Israelites is totally beside the point.

[ 11-23-2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

I'm curious how one would reconcile the fact (from a scholarly standpoint, not one based primarily on faith or religion) that the same biblical tales can be found in the evidence left from the civilizations of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, ect. but certain key details (like a plurality of 'Gods' rather than just one) are different from the bible we know today.

[Chewbacca]

Here is an addition to by post just above. When I went back to edit it, the forum wouldn't load...

How can it (the bible) be totally consistent and error-free when the earliest tellings conflict with the later? I know the earlier tellings are a recent discovery in the last 100 years or so, so one cannot cast blame for knowledge lost.

Now that this knowledge has been rediscovered, it seems only logical that a fresh perspective must be considered to achieve a fair academic veiw of the ancient history described in the bible.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I'm curious how one would reconcile the fact (from a scholarly standpoint, not one based primarily on faith or religion) that the same biblical tales can be found in the evidence left from the civilizations of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, ect. but certain key details (like a plurality of 'Gods' rather than just one) are different from the bible we know today.

The surrounding cultures did not record their losses. the Assyrians in particular. Sennacherib's accounts mention that he returned unable to conquer Jerusalem for example, but give no details as to the events. Whereas the Jewish histories record their losses and humiliations in agonising detail. Their greatest leaders, such as David, are held up to scrutiny and found wanting. David - described as a man after Gods heart - is shown to be an inept father (two sons led armed rebellions against him) and a murder, who has a man killed so he can take his wife for himself. If they are honest about his failings, why not his sucesses? His psalms* are incredible when seen in the light of his troubles. Walking through the pit of despair, yet hanging on to Gods love, grace and providence. Astoundingly uplifting.

Many of the other Judges and leaders of Israel are shown to have fatal flaws. The honesty of the bibles histories is compelling. In many cases it would have made more sense for them to gloss over or omit difficult facts. Some things, even today are hard to understand or reconcile with the God we know through knowing Jesus. It is the inclusion of these very facts that in my mind, make the bible that more believable. Nothing about the bible is convenient. Nothing is "easy". To accept it, you have to change your mindset rather than incorporate it into an existing one.

*Psalm 23 A psalm of David. 1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, 3 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, [1] I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Here is an addition to by post just above. When I went back to edit it, the forum wouldn't load... How can it (the bible) be totally consistent and error-free when the earliest tellings conflict with the later? I know the earlier tellings are a recent discovery in the last 100 years or so, so one cannot cast blame for knowledge lost. Now that this knowledge has been rediscovered, it seems only logical that a fresh perspective must be considered to achieve a fair academic veiw of the ancient history described in the bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "earlist tellings" or "conflict". Can you give hard examples and elaborate? To my understanding the dead sea scrolls and other manuscripts found most recently substanciate and support the earlier findings.

If yu're refering to the Nag hammadi texts, these were Gnostic works. That notwithstanding, the Gospel of Thomas, though editted by a gnostic editor, still co-aligns with the other Gospels found in theology and details of events.

[Timber Loftis]

Pikachu, your post citing the Bible was excellent, and I note no one, not even our resident bard egg-boy, has answered them. thanks!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Pikachu, your post citing the Bible was excellent, and I note no one, not even our resident bard egg-boy, has answered them. thanks!

Yes he did, Timber. His response was The list of rules from the old testament is a prime example. You've completely ignored Grace, the concepts of being removed from the law of Moses, for the reason for or nature of the covenant between God and Israel.

I've seen that list that Pikachu offered before. In fact, my buddy sent me that same list a couple of years ago. While it is entertaining to non-believers {since they have found a list of laws from the Bible they believe are indefensible}, the list ignores the fact that these are ALL taken from the Law of Moses in the Old Testament to the Jews...and that this Law was replaced by the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is the same as some of the archaic laws that are still on the books of various states in the U.S. today. In some cases, these laws don't even make sense because the situation(s) they refer to no longer exist...yet the laws have never been stricken from the books. Laws such as "if two or more cars reach an intersection at the same time, all of the cars shall stop..and none of them shall move until the other cars are gone"

That's just one example I remember from a book I had listing some of the sillier laws still on the books across the U.S. The list provided by Pikachu may be entertaining, but it is basically a red herring. It picks and chooses certain passages (mainly from Exodus and Leviticus) and presents them as if they universal laws to be practiced by all Christians...which they are not. But the list is done mostly tongue-in-cheek, and I can see why it gets a chuckle from non-believers who feel they have found a part of the Bible that cannot be defended.

[ 11-24-2003, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Timber Loftis]

Cerek, I realize that the New Testament was a change in the old laws. For instance, I have read Galatians and Paul's words therein abrogating (or limiting) such things as the notion of kosher. However, I find it amusing at least, and poignant at best, to point these things out. Are there specific references refuting each one? Ithink not. I think you'll be relying on general statements by disciples to refute those laws.

Anyway, I once found a reference guide for the bible relating to specific issues. In looking for "premarital relations/sex" I found a lot of interesting tidbits. One was that if you had sex with a woman out of wedlock, you had to ask for her hand in marriage, but could refuse if the dowry was too low. Loved that one.